This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/world/pakistani-held-in-iraq-wins-a-round-in-court.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Pakistani, Held in Iraq, Wins a Round in Court Pakistani, Held in Iraq, Wins a Round in Court
(34 minutes later)
LONDON — A British court ruled Wednesday that a Pakistani man who was detained by British troops in Iraq on suspicion of links to terrorism but never charged could sue the British government over how he was treated.LONDON — A British court ruled Wednesday that a Pakistani man who was detained by British troops in Iraq on suspicion of links to terrorism but never charged could sue the British government over how he was treated.
The plaintiff, Yunus Rahmatullah, who was detained in Iraq in 2004, says he was tortured on and off for a decade, first by British and then by American troops. He was released in May.The plaintiff, Yunus Rahmatullah, who was detained in Iraq in 2004, says he was tortured on and off for a decade, first by British and then by American troops. He was released in May.
The case is the second in less than a month in which a former terrorism suspect has been granted the chance to seek damages and a formal investigation into allegations of unlawful detention and abuse in custody.The case is the second in less than a month in which a former terrorism suspect has been granted the chance to seek damages and a formal investigation into allegations of unlawful detention and abuse in custody.
The British government sought to fend off the suits, arguing that allowing them to proceed would damage relations with the United States. The judge who heard Mr. Rahmatullah’s petition rejected that argument.The British government sought to fend off the suits, arguing that allowing them to proceed would damage relations with the United States. The judge who heard Mr. Rahmatullah’s petition rejected that argument.
“For the court to refuse to decide a case involving a matter of legal right on the ground that vindicating the right would be harmful to state interests would seem to me to be an abdication of its constitutional function,” Justice George Leggatt said Wednesday in the High Court.“For the court to refuse to decide a case involving a matter of legal right on the ground that vindicating the right would be harmful to state interests would seem to me to be an abdication of its constitutional function,” Justice George Leggatt said Wednesday in the High Court.
The British government argued that neither it nor the British courts had any jurisdiction or control over the acts of American troops and officials. But the judge said that if deciding whether the man’s rights had been violated by the British government required investigating whether American officials acted unlawfully, “then the court can and must do that.”The British government argued that neither it nor the British courts had any jurisdiction or control over the acts of American troops and officials. But the judge said that if deciding whether the man’s rights had been violated by the British government required investigating whether American officials acted unlawfully, “then the court can and must do that.”
Mr. Rahmatullah, 32, says he moved to Iraq in 2004 to find work and was captured in a raid of his Baghdad apartment by British special forces soon afterward. He denies any involvement with militants.Mr. Rahmatullah, 32, says he moved to Iraq in 2004 to find work and was captured in a raid of his Baghdad apartment by British special forces soon afterward. He denies any involvement with militants.
His lawyers say he was blindfolded and beaten repeatedly, and then handed over to American troops, who subjected him to more mistreatment involving extreme temperatures, whipping, having his head submerged in water, keeping him naked for several weeks, and hanging him by his wrists from the ceiling. He was held in Camp Nama and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and then was sent in July 2004 to the Bagram military base in Afghanistan.His lawyers say he was blindfolded and beaten repeatedly, and then handed over to American troops, who subjected him to more mistreatment involving extreme temperatures, whipping, having his head submerged in water, keeping him naked for several weeks, and hanging him by his wrists from the ceiling. He was held in Camp Nama and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and then was sent in July 2004 to the Bagram military base in Afghanistan.
Kat Craig, a director of the legal charity Reprieve who represents Mr. Rahmatullah, said no charges were ever filed against him and no evidence of wrongdoing was shown to his lawyers.Kat Craig, a director of the legal charity Reprieve who represents Mr. Rahmatullah, said no charges were ever filed against him and no evidence of wrongdoing was shown to his lawyers.
“We are seeing a continuous pattern of serious allegations of mistreatment, ranging from kidnapping to torture,” Ms. Craig said. “The government is not saying ‘This did not happen’ or ‘We will make our case for why it did.’ It has simply been trying to close the door of the courts. This was nothing less than a patent attempt to immunize itself by hiding behind the Americans. But the court said no.”“We are seeing a continuous pattern of serious allegations of mistreatment, ranging from kidnapping to torture,” Ms. Craig said. “The government is not saying ‘This did not happen’ or ‘We will make our case for why it did.’ It has simply been trying to close the door of the courts. This was nothing less than a patent attempt to immunize itself by hiding behind the Americans. But the court said no.”
The judge’s ruling also affects three Iraqi men with similar cases who can now also sue for damages, pending the appeal, lawyers said.The judge’s ruling also affects three Iraqi men with similar cases who can now also sue for damages, pending the appeal, lawyers said.
And three weeks ago, a British appeals court allowed a Libyan politician, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, and his wife, Fatima Bouchar, to bring a case against the British secret service, MI6, and the former British foreign secretary Jack Straw. Their suit accuses MI6 of complicity with the Central Intelligence Agency in their detention, deportation and subsequent torture in their home country a decade ago.And three weeks ago, a British appeals court allowed a Libyan politician, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, and his wife, Fatima Bouchar, to bring a case against the British secret service, MI6, and the former British foreign secretary Jack Straw. Their suit accuses MI6 of complicity with the Central Intelligence Agency in their detention, deportation and subsequent torture in their home country a decade ago.
“There is a compelling public interest in the investigation by the English courts of these very grave allegations,” the court ruling said.“There is a compelling public interest in the investigation by the English courts of these very grave allegations,” the court ruling said.
Government lawyers indicated that they would appeal both the Rahmatullah and the Belhaj rulings. Government lawyers indicated that they would appeal the Rahmatullah and the Belhaj rulings.
Few believe that the British cases will lead to any significant change in the United States, where the Obama administration has been reluctant to investigate, let alone prosecute, allegations of torture under the Bush administration. American courts have consistently thrown out lawsuits against American officials. And most recently, the Obama administration refused to declassify information needed for the Senate Intelligence Committee to publish its report on C.I.A. torture.Few believe that the British cases will lead to any significant change in the United States, where the Obama administration has been reluctant to investigate, let alone prosecute, allegations of torture under the Bush administration. American courts have consistently thrown out lawsuits against American officials. And most recently, the Obama administration refused to declassify information needed for the Senate Intelligence Committee to publish its report on C.I.A. torture.
“This British case shows that despite Obama’s intense efforts to keep the lid on disclosures about Bush’s torture, people committed to ending this terrible precedent of impunity for torture keep pushing the lid ajar,” said Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch and a former federal prosecutor.“This British case shows that despite Obama’s intense efforts to keep the lid on disclosures about Bush’s torture, people committed to ending this terrible precedent of impunity for torture keep pushing the lid ajar,” said Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch and a former federal prosecutor.
Mr. Roth said that the British cases might “shine a spotlight on some of this torture,” but were unlikely to make similar lawsuits easier to mount in the United States. “Several such cases have been tried but they all have been dismissed at the government’s urging on grounds of state secrets or immunity,” he said. Mr. Roth said that the British cases might “shine a spotlight on some of this torture,” but were unlikely to make similar lawsuits easier to mount in the United States. “Several such cases have been tried, but they all have been dismissed at the government’s urging on grounds of state secrets or immunity,” he said.
A rule in British law known as the foreign act of state doctrine bars the country’s courts from hearing cases against foreign governments. But Mr. Rahmatullah’s lawyers argue that the doctrine should not spare the British government from scrutiny as well, just because it has acted in conjunction with a foreign state. A rule in British law known as the foreign act of state doctrine forbids the country’s courts to hear cases against foreign governments. But Mr. Rahmatullah’s lawyers argue that the doctrine should not spare the British government from scrutiny as well, just because it has acted in conjunction with a foreign state.
“In a globalized world, where governments rarely act alone, the implications of such immunity would be terrible,” said Ms. Craig of Reprieve.“In a globalized world, where governments rarely act alone, the implications of such immunity would be terrible,” said Ms. Craig of Reprieve.
Sapna Malik, another lawyer representing Mr. Rahmatullah, said, “It is now high time for the British government to abandon its attempts to evade judicial scrutiny of its conduct in operations involving the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that justice may finally be served for what has passed, and lessons learned for the future.”Sapna Malik, another lawyer representing Mr. Rahmatullah, said, “It is now high time for the British government to abandon its attempts to evade judicial scrutiny of its conduct in operations involving the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that justice may finally be served for what has passed, and lessons learned for the future.”
The British government’s legal position was further clouded last week with the revelation that its spies had been given the power to intercept privileged communications between lawyers and their clients, and may have illegally exploited that access in some sensitive security cases. The revelations came in policy documents made public after a legal challenge by Mr. Belhaj’s lawyer, who suspected that Mr. Belhaj’s conversations and emails with his representatives were being monitored.The British government’s legal position was further clouded last week with the revelation that its spies had been given the power to intercept privileged communications between lawyers and their clients, and may have illegally exploited that access in some sensitive security cases. The revelations came in policy documents made public after a legal challenge by Mr. Belhaj’s lawyer, who suspected that Mr. Belhaj’s conversations and emails with his representatives were being monitored.